Room At The Table?

Nato Expansion Is A Dangerous Policy

February 04, 1998|By Peter Wilk and Robert W. Tiller. Peter Wilk, is the North American vice president of International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War. Robert W. Tiller is director of security programs for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

NATO enlargement would be a costly mistake resulting in decreased security for all nations. The U.S. Senate should think carefully before it votes in early March on admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as new NATO members.

NATO was born in 1949 as a collective response by North Atlantic nations to a real security threat from the Soviet Union. But now, in the waning days of the 20th Century, neither current NATO members nor the proposed new members are under any credible military threat from Russia.

In fact, proceeding with enlargement may do serious harm to U.S.-Russia relations and to NATO-Russia relations. Although Russian President Boris Yeltsin reluctantly agreed to NATO enlargement and a NATO-Russia Joint Council, an overwhelming majority of the Russian Duma is so hostile toward enlargement that they may reject the START II treaty and derail START III negotiations, the next step toward deep bilateral cuts in nuclear arsenals that would enhance security for all of us.

If NATO accepts the three Baltic states for membership--a probable next step--Russia will view that as even more provocative and is likely to respond with a military buildup adjacent to the Baltics.

Nuclear weapons do not provide security.

The only security rationale put forward to justify NATO enlargement is based on outdated Cold War thinking. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons remain a cornerstone of NATO's military posture, and the proposal now before the Senate would add three countries to the list of those we are covering with an umbrella of nuclear weapons--as well as conventional weapons.

It is bad NATO policy to perpetuate the nuclear threat in Europe, putting in jeopardy all the people of its member nations by overemphasizing nuclear weapons in its military planning. The enlargement of NATO only increases the danger by adding the possibility of deploying in the new member states nuclear weapons much closer to Russia. One only has to recall the tension in 1962 when Khrushchev moved nuclear weapons to Cuba, very close to our turf, to realize how counterproductive this would be.

Alternatives are available.

When physicians address problems, we seek to objectively weigh benefits, risks and costs prior to committing ourselves to a course of treatment. Using such an approach, the flaws in NATO enlargement become clear: little benefit (no threat is countered), great risks (continuing reliance on nuclear forces, provoking Russia, de-railing the START process), and huge costs (billions of dollars).

We believe NATO should immediately scrap its enlargement effort. As public debate gets underway, the Senate, the Clinton administration and our NATO partners ought to consider some alternatives before rushing ahead:

1) Rather than expanding their military alliance, the U.S. and its European colleagues should seek to enlarge and strengthen European-based coalitions that do not possess nuclear weapons or conduct military operations.

2) In order to signal an intention to reduce the nuclear threat in Europe and thus enhance true European security, the U.S. should lead NATO in offering written guarantees that no nuclear weapons will be deployed in new NATO member states. Then the U.S. and NATO should begin negotiations with Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine on the establishment of a nuclear-weapons-free zone throughout central Europe.

3) The U.S. should immediately begin the process of removing nuclear weapons from alert status, thus reducing the nuclear threat. The simplest way to do this is by taking the warheads off their missiles. One scenario for accomplishing this on a mutual basis with Russia would be to de-alert 500 NATO warheads and invite Russia both to inspect those warheads and to reciprocate within 30 days. Once each side has done it with 500, they could do it again with 500 more, and so on. No warheads would be retired, they would just be removed from hair-trigger alert.

Put simply, the era has passed when it makes any sense to enlarge a military alliance in Europe. Instead, President Clinton and the U.S. Senate should lead us boldly into the 21st Century with policies that enhance the security of all the world's people.